LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

RED LINES & SYRIA: WHOSE?

Israeli or American red lines drawn?....

Syria crosses two red lines, and one nation steps up to enforce its line.  Not us.  President Obama has "reset" his chemical weapons red line, as Russia aids the Syrian regime in blocking a meaningful UN investigation.  the red-line enforcer is ... Israel.

Here is background on Israel-US Syria-red-line dealings:

In a series of high-level meetings between U.S. and Israeli officials over the last year, the Israelis explained in detail the conditions that would lead them to attack targets inside Syria. Israel’s “red lines,” articulated in private and public, include the shipment from Iran of advanced anti-aircraft weapons, advanced missiles, and chemical or unconventional weapons to the Lebanese militia and political party Hezbollah, according to public reports and U.S. officials.

In effect, Israel is doing Obama's dirty work, while O sits on the sidelines.  Israel's recent air-strikes show that Syria's air defenses are less formidable than advertised by the regime, and by those opposing aerial action against the regime.  As AEI Mideast maven Danielle Pletka puts it:

S. KOREA: OUR ALBATROSS?

Why South Korea is our Asian Achilles' heel....

Strategist Edward Luttwak explains why South Korea's security & economic policies undercut America's efforts to contain North Korea:

To feed the palace system, North Korea must also extract payoffs from the outside world: some from enabling NGOs (food aid from which allows domestic food production to be used for army rations), some from the United States and Japan in exchange for Pyongyang's nuclear promises (never kept), but most from the fellow Koreans of the South (whose payoffs are won by sheer intimidation). South Korean President Kim Dae-jung won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his unprecedented reconciliation summit with Kim Jong Il, a moment when peace and even unification seemed imminent. Only later did the truth leak out: The summit had been purchased for $100 million in cash. Unsurprisingly, it led to nothing.

Unwilling to deter North Korea -- which would require a readiness to retaliate for its occasionally bloody attacks and constant provocations, thereby troubling business and roiling the Seoul stock market -- South Korea has instead preferred to pay off the regime with periodic injections of fuel and food aid, but most consistently by way of the North-South Kaesong industrial zone, in which some 80,000 North Korean workers are paid relatively good wages by South Korean corporations. The workers themselves receive very little of their salaries, of course, the majority of which gets funneled back to Pyongyang and makes up the North's largest consistent source of foreign currency. Even under supposedly "hard-line" South Korean presidents, the Kaesong transfer has continued. It was not shut down when the North sunk South Korea's Cheonan warship, killing 46 sailors; nor when the North opened artillery fire on a South Korean island, killing two soldiers and two civilians; nor when the North tested a nuclear device and launched a long-range ballistic missile. Even as the present crisis has unfolded, it was the paying South that feared an interruption of production at Kaesong, not the North, which reaps the benefits. And when media in South Korea noted with much relief that Kaesong was still open, the North Koreans promptly shut it down.

Having successfully extracted payoffs so consistently through threats and occasional attacks, the North is naturally at it again. Even though another nuclear test and the threatened launch of a mobile long-range ballistic missile appear imminent, a payoff from the South, not war on the Korean Peninsula, is the likely outcome. And Pyongyang knows this.

Meanwhile, South Korea has matched the North's bellicosity with its own strategic perversity: It remains obsessed with an utterly unthreatening Japan and has been purchasing air power to contend with imagined threats from Tokyo as opposed to the real ones just north of the demilitarized zone. Seoul is simply unwilling to acquire military strength to match its vastly superior economy. Instead, it spends billions of dollars to develop its proudly "indigenous" T-50 jet fighters, Surion helicopters, and coastal defense frigates -- alternatives for which could be much better, and cheaper, imported from the United States. Meanwhile, gaping holes remain in South Korean defenses (and thus we see the ridiculous spectacle of last-minute scrambling for missing equipment and munitions in the present crisis). And the cycle continues: Because the South allows itself to remain so vulnerable, it cannot react effectively against North Korea's perpetual threats and periodic attacks. Instead, Seoul checks its bank account and gets ready for the next payoff.

Luttwak calls upon the US to press South Korea to adopt a stronger defense policy, to close the joint industry project & end financial subsidies of any kind to Pyongyang.  A Wall Street Journal editorial details how the Kaesong project underwrites the North's aggression....

BENGHAZI UNRAVELS

House GOP report shows rank deception, deceit....

On April 23 House Republicans released a 43-page interim progress report on the Benghazi debacle, with more House hearings on Benghazi in the works.  Michael Barone excerpts key points. He notes as well that while partisanship plays a role in all single-party reports, the Democrats declined to issue one of their own, suggesting they'd rather the issue went away.  Jed Babbin sees a Benghazi + Syria + Boston link, that being Team Obama's resolute denial that Islamist terror is alive & all too well--despite a president supposedly iconic to Muslims around the world.

Here is the executive summary:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

•  Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

•  In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

•  Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

  These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees. The Committees will continue to review who exactly was responsible for the failure to respond to the repeated requests for more security and for the effort to cover up the nature of the attacks, so that appropriate officials will be held accountable.

And here are the report's specific findings & policy considerations, well worth a read:

Findings

This progress report reveals a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department as to the dangers presented in Benghazi, Libya, as well as a concerted attempt to insulate the Department of State from blame following the terrorist attacks. The Committees’ majority staff summarizes findings to date as follows:

Before the Attacks:

•  After the U.S.-backed Libyan revolution ended the Gadhafi regime, the U.S. government did not deploy sufficient U.S. security elements to protect U.S. interests and personnel that remained on the ground.

•  Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.

•  Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

•  The attacks were not the result of a failure by the Intelligence Community (IC) to recognize or communicate the threat. The IC collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.

•  The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense. Defense Department assets were correctly positioned for the general threat across the region, but the assets were not authorized at an alert posture to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense, and were provided no notice to defend diplomatic facilities.

  During the Attacks:

•  On the evening of September 11, 2012, U.S. security teams on the ground in Benghazi exhibited extreme bravery responding the attacks by al-Qa’ida-affiliated groups against the U.S. mission.

•  Department of Defense officials and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi. The effectiveness of their response was hindered on account of U.S. military forces not being properly postured to address the growing threats in northern Africa or to respond to a brief, high-intensity attack on U.S. personnel or interests across much of Africa.

After the Attacks:

•  The Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video. U.S. officials on the ground reported – and video evidence confirms – that demonstrations outside the Benghazi Mission did not occur and that the incident began with an armed attack on the facility. Senior Administration officials knowingly minimized the role played by al-Qa’ida-affiliated entities and other associated groups in the attacks, and decided to exclude from the discussion the previous attempts by extremists to attack U.S. persons or facilities in Libya.

•  Administration officials crafted and continued to rely on incomplete and misleading talking points. Specifically, after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi. Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.

•  Evidence rebuts Administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Email exchanges during the interagency process do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information. Additionally, the Bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.

•  The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the IC for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated. Had Administration spokesmen performed even limited due diligence inquiries into the intelligence behind the talking points or requested reports from personnel on the ground, they would have quickly understood that the situation was more complex than the narrative provided by Ambassador Susan Rice and others in the Administration.

•  The Administration’s decision to respond to the Benghazi attacks with an FBI investigation, rather than military or other intelligence resources, contributed to the government’s lack of candor about the nature of the attack.

•  Responding to the attacks with an FBI investigation significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner.

Policy Considerations

•  The events in Benghazi reflect the Administration’s lack of a comprehensive national security strategy or a credible national security posture in the region. The United States continues to maintain an inadequate defensive posture in North Africa and the Middle East as a result of the Administration’s under-appreciation of the threat that al-Qa’ida and related terrorist groups pose in the region.

•  This singular event will be repeated unless the United States recognizes and responds to the threats we face around the world, and properly postures resources and security assets to counter and respond to those threats. Until that time, the United States will remain in a reactionary mode and should expect more catastrophes like Benghazi, in which U.S. personnel on the ground perform bravely, but are not provided with the resources for an effective response. As those opposed to U.S. interests will continue to take advantage of perceived U.S. weaknesses, the United States will continue to lose credibility with its allies and face the worst of all possible outcomes in strategically important locations around the world.

•  Congress must maintain pressure on the Administration to ensure the United States takes all necessary steps to find the Benghazi attackers. It has been more than seven months since the FBI investigation began, and there is very little progress. The risks of treating the Benghazi terrorist attacks as a law enforcement matter rather than a military matter are becoming increasingly clear. The failure to respond more assertively to the attacks and to impose meaningful consequences on those who planned and perpetrated them has contributed to a perception of U.S. weakness and retreat. Al-Qa’ida grew emboldened when the U.S. failed to respond forcibly and effectively to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (1993), U.S. Embassies in East Africa (1998), and the U.S.S. Cole (2000). Active terrorist organizations and potential recruits will also be emboldened to attack U.S. interests if the U.S. fails to hold those responsible for this attack accountable.

•  Congress must also provide an effective counterweight to the Administration’s failure to adequately communicate the nature and the extent of the threats our country faces today. The Administration must do more to develop a coherent and robust national security strategy, and Congress must hold it accountable to do so.

So the administration effectively ran out the pre-election & post-election clocks, by asking the FBI to begin a lengthy investigation, and claiming it therefore could not comment.  Such by itself is not a bad way to go as to the full picture, provided readily available information about administration handling during the election campaign were not held up.  Info was in fact held back, protecting the presidential narrative as to the president being on top of things, and the attack coming virtually without any advance warning signs, and so on.

Bottom Line.  Team Obama punted the Benghazi affair far enough down the road--now, 7-1/2 months & counting--that political fallout from this report will be minimal to non-existent.  And that, fans, was precisely Team Obama's goal.  Or, as George W. Bush might have said, "Mission accomplished."

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Foreign Policy, National Security, Terrorism, Conservative Politics

MIDEAST: JIHADI RISING

One huge win for Israel as storm clouds gather....

ISRAEL.  President Obama's visit last week signaled one major shift above all, flagged by Mideast expert Daniel Pipes: for the first time Obama insisted that Arabs recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  In his Jerusalem speech the president said: "Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state."

True, as Charles Krauthammer noted in his column, Obama remains confused, having said in Israel: “I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those [Palestinian] kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’ ”  CK tartly asked if the president would tell Palestinians to want Israeli kids to succeed, instead of trying to kill them by the carload.  But Joseph Shattan at TAS sees O's charm offensive as designed to prevent an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

On the economic front there is more good news for Israel: Israel's new Tamar offshore natural gas field will begin supplying energy to Israel.  Since the Arab Spring began in 2011, Israel's Egyptian gas pipelines have been the target of serial sabotage.

JORDAN.  President Obama is ignoring warnings from Jordan's King Addullah, probably the most pro-US Arab leader in the Mideast.  Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed King Abdullah recently.  Beset by rising domestic discontent, and buffeted in the stormy winds of the Arab Spring, Abdullah spoke of how he would handle mass demonstrations:

LOSING IRAQ; MISSING SYRIA

Obama blows two key Mideast plays....

IRAQ.  Jihadists take off from Iran, via Iraqi airspace fly into Syria, to provide vital supplies for the Assad regime's bid to retain power.  Alas, America's early exit from Iraq undermined support there for the US, reducing to a near nullity America's say.  Obama failed to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement that would have enabled American troops to be stationed there and foster stability while freezing out Iranian influence.  So Iran is the geostrategic winner.  SecState John Kerry expressed public puzzlement at this Iraqi shift.  Were the US still controlling Iraq's airspace Iran's fleet would exist only at our sufferance.  Alas, Kerry simply does not appear to grasp that reality, hence his begging Iraqi leaders (h/t Jen Rubin) to stop Iran.

Adding insult to injury: Iraqis who helped the US face a sluggish visa-approval process in a program that is to end this year.

SYRIA.  Incredibly, our military lacks a plan to deal with a crisis involving Syrian chemical weapons.  According to the WaPo:

“If we had to go in tomorrow, I’d say we aren’t ready,” said an Obama administration official involved in preparations for securing Syria’s chemical weapons. “One thing we want to avoid is having one group securing the sites and another group bombing them.....

The CIA, the National Security Agency and other spy services have expanded their collection efforts against Syria over the past year. But U.S. officials said that the CIA has not established a presence in the country and that the scope of the conflict has precluded it from distributing sensors that could detect chemical attacks.
Asked whether such devices were being used, one senior U.S. official said, ”I wish.”

Yup: Team Obama does NOT have a plan in place.

For more than a year President Obama, his senior foreign policy & military officials have stressed that use of WMD crosses a "red line."  And yet despite this, they do NOT have a plan.

Bottom Line.  It is hard to imagine the staggering cluelessness of the administration's Mideast policies--and its policymakers.  Did Team Obama really believe that Iraqis would continue to respect America's views when America precipitously left Iraq, instead of entering into a readily obtainable status-of-forces agreement?  Did the administration think that it could draw a red line re Syrian WMD and not even bother to create a set of contingency plans to deal with various WMD scenarios?

Apparently so.  Alas, we face four more years of this kind of feckless flailing.  It is said that God looks out for fools, drunks & the United States of America.

We'd better hope that He still does.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National Security, Foreign Policy, Conservative Politics

IRAN & THE OBAMA DOCTRINE

So where does our Iran policy stand now?....

IRAN AUGURIES.  President Obama's leak that US intel sees Iran within one year of a nuclear bomb, if true, informs Iran of our intel status.  Jeffrey Goldberg predicts Obama will press Bibi hard over Iran, to derail a possible Israeli strike, by promising an American strike (a promise utterly unenforceable). Israel feels that the West offered too many concessions to Iran in current talks.  A "shadow war" between Israel's Mossad & Iran is raising hackles at the CIA.

Two security experts see Obama courting "Finlandization" of allied Gulf states (sub. only) due to our Iran policy:

BARACK DOES ISRAEL

O's first presidential visit to an ally, & an enemy....

PALESTINIAN PERVERSITY.  With their US best friend coming to see what passes for Palestinian leadership, violence on Temple Mount prior to Obama's visit shows anew Palestinian intransigence:

Hamas officials have warned that Obama’s visit will further fracture its relations with the Palestinian Authority and have even stated that a presidential visit to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount will be viewed as a declaration of war.

Hamas official Mushir al-Masri “called for a third intifada [or uprising] and for Egyptian assistance in the ‘resistance’ if Obama chooses to visit the Temple Mount,” the site of Muslim places of worship, Arutz Sheva reported on Friday.

Former United States officials and Middle East experts said that the rising tide of violence is causing great anxiety in the final days before Obama touches down in Tel Aviv.

Worse: the Palestinians warned Obama not to visit Temple Mount, else they will interpret the president's visit as a declaration of war.  Even worse: Palestinians (h/t Jen Rubin) reach new heights of monumental self-absorption: they trash Obama's photo as they demand promised access to 3G wireless technology (offering, as usual, nothing in return). Gazans yawn at Obama's not visiting Gaza.  Gazans can buy M75 perfume, named after a Palestinian rocket fired into Israel.  "O" did do one good deed: urging Egypt to close the Gaza tunnels, which has been done.

Worse still:

1973's BENGHAZI PREQUEL

Death of an envoy & rise of an arch-terrorist....

At TAS is the tale surrounding March 1, 1973, when PLO terrorist leader Yasser Arafat ordered the raid on the US Embassy in Khartoum, and the execution of four diplomats, including US Ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel.  As recounted by a naval communications analyst directly involved in the US government's activities that fateful night & in the days after, it echoes Benghazi 2012:

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT PERIL

President Obama doubles a bad bet....

Yesterday Human Events posted my article: Obama Doubles Down on Nuclear Disarmament.

I assess why Obama's nuclear policies towards Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are failing.  Put simply, utopian nuclear-zero fantasies are driving the president's policies, and thus are making more likely a nuclear war or a nuclear terrorism catastrophe.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, Nuclear Proliferation, WMD, Terrorism, Homeland Security, National Security, Foreign Policy

PAKISTAN HATES AMERICA

Will a new Gallup Paki-poll sober up US leaders?....

An October 2012 Gallup poll of Pakistanis shows a record 92 percent disapproval of America.  Data culled from several Gallup polls taken there, starting in September 2005, should be a wake-up call for US leaders who regard Pakistan an ally.

High(low)lights:

(1) Pakistani disapprove/approve numbers ranged from 70/21 in 9/05, to a best figure of 47/39 in May 2009 and then to an all-time low of 92/4 in 10/12.

(2) Gallup's May 2011 poll, taken shortly after the sovereignty-violating raid that killed Osama bin Laden, showed a 49/27 disapprove/approve number.

(3) Pakistani attitudes towards Islam's interaction with the West, 35/27 threat/benefit in 2010, was 39/31 threat/benefit in 2011, then sunk to an abysmal 55/13 threat/benefit in 2012.  Pakistan's 15-29 cohort, 49 percent of the country's population, was slightly more negative towards interaction with the West.

(4) While favorability of the country's military rose lightly, from 84 percent in 2005 to 88 percent in 2012, favorability of the civilian government plummeted from 58 percent in 2005 to 23 percent in 2012.

These numbers yield several conclusions:

First: Pakistan is not an ally at all, but rather a nuclear-armed rogue state whose increasingly Islamist population seethes with hatred & resentment towards the US & the West.  Along with the Arab Spring, this puts paid to the utterly fatuous notion that President Obama, given his childhood association with Islam, would fundamentally transform for the better America's relations with diverse Islamic communities around the globe.

Second: Current US policy does not reflect these realities.  One wonders if notice was taken of the latest Pakistani test of a sophisticated short-range nuclear-missile carrying a maneuverable warhead, a weapon capability few countries possess.

Third: America's 2014 withdrawal from Afghanistan gives the US an opportunity to adopt a more realistic policy towards Pakistan.

Fourth: The best way to change the geopolitical dynamic in the Asian Subcontinent region is to tilt more towards India, an increasingly major geopolitical & economic player, mortal adversary of Pakistan.

Bottom Line.  Once again, Team Obama is caught dangerously off base in a crucial arena for American foreign & national security policy.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National security, Foreign Policy, WMD, Nuclear Proliferation, Homeland Security, Conservative Politics

MIDEAST II: US, EGYPT, ISRAEL

Update on US, Egypt & Israel, mostly bad....

Egypt.  Team Obama stands idly by--worse, sends more F-16s--as Egypt engages thugs from Hamas to help suppress domestic opposition to Mohammed Morsi's Islamist tyranny.  Freed from Mubarak's Gaza blockade--leaky but moderately effective--Hamas now turns to undermining the Palestine Authority on the West Bank.  Recently, an Egyptian judge banned YouTube for one month, citing an "anti-Islam" video posted at the site.  (As of 2010, an estimated 18 percent of Egyptians were Internet users.)  Weekly Standard Mideast maven Lee Smith sees an Egypt on the edge of chaos.....

MIDEAST I: US, IRAN, SYRIA

Iran, Syria, US update, mostly bad....

Iran. Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide, has contemptuously rebuffed Team Obama's plea for more diplomatic negotiations, and warned his subjects as well:

I’m not a diplomat; I’m a revolutionary, and speak frankly and directly.  If anyone wants the return of U.S. dominance here, people will grab his throat.

Khamenei is sole custodian of Iran's nuclear program.  The WSJ editors offer historical narrative to document repeated Iranian refusals to bargain over its nuclear ambitions.  Iran shopped in China for "ring magnets"--critical for operating high-speed uranium enrichment centrifuges.  Iran's leaders played "good cop/bad cop" again this weekend, promising to go civilian if only its "rights" are protected.  Another deception: Iran recently unveiled a "stealth jet"--in reality, a mock-up model with a possible drone version flight; Iran even Photoshopped the "plane" ostensibly flying above snow-capped mountains.

Recently SecState John Kerry warned Iran that “prepared to do whatever is necessary” to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  But why should the Iranians believe this, given a president who has moved "red lines" as Iran progresses?...

N.K. TEST 3: URANIUM BOMB?

Did Pyongyang test its first uranium bomb?....

Early reports were that North Korea had tested a plutonium device, as noted in LFTC's Tuesday edition.  But in a recent New York Times op-ed, top nuclear proliferation maven Graham Allison states that US officials now believe it was a uranium bomb.  If true this is significant.

Allison notes that this gives Pyongyang not only a second route to making fuel for a nuclear weapon; it also likely means that the North built a clandestine uranium enrichment site not previously known to outside observers.  Uranium, GA notes, is also harder to detect (hence easier to smuggle), and can be made into a gun-trigger bomb that need not be tested--as was the case with the Hiroshima bomb.  (The Nagasaki bomb used plutonium, and hence had to employ a complex "implosion" trigger--a technique that must be tested to ensure that it will work.)

Allison notes that in intelligence circles Pyongyang is known as "Missiles 'R' Us"--a reference to its proclivity for selling WMD technology to rogue-state buyers.  GA proposes that the US issue a credible, stern warning that any use of a nuclear bomb against the US or its allies that is traced to material supplied by the North would result in nuclear retaliation by the US.

But an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that the plutonium or uranium question remains up in the air.  So do other key questions, pending testing of atmospheric samples leaking from underground:

"SEAL-ED" WITH A KISS-OFF

How does our gov't treat our true heroes?....

Not very well, if one believes (I do) "The Shooter": a superb 40-page profile in Esquire of the man who killed Osama bin Laden.  We learn details of the raid, and what "Zero Dark Thirty" got right (most) & got wrong (details, but not the essential story); of the immense familial & physical sacrifices exacted from our finest warriors; and of the appalling failure of the government that sent them into harm's way to provide properly for them & their families upon their return.

Bottom Line.  Celebrate the astonishing achievements of our finest, and lament the lack of support we give them upon their return.

Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, National Security, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Conservative Politics

NORTH KOREA: NUKE TEST 3

Ominous evidence of progress....

Pyongyang's third nuclear test was twice as powerful as its second (2009--the first, in 2006, is generally believed to have been a partial fizzle).  But that is the least of it.  This design was apparently lighter and more compact than the earlier ones--signs of work towards building a small but powerful warhead that can be placed atop a ballistic missile.

The 2006 test yielded less than one kiloton; the 2009 test yielded around 6 to 7 kilotons.  The latest test's yield was about twice 2009's, by some estimates (newly TV-reported U.S. intel estimate: 6+ kilotons).  If true this would place its yield at the level of the Hiroshima bomb (2/3 that for the Nagasaki bomb).  All three tests used plutonium, a fuel that requires a sophisticated "implosion" trigger to symmetrically compress the plutonium fuel to a super-critical mass in nanoseconds to achieve design yield.  Pyongyang is also working on a uranium enrichment route to a bomb, but there has been no uranium bomb test to date....

BRENNAN IN THE DOCK

CIA Director John Brennan's hearing....

Days before the hearing, Team Obama released a 16-page Justice Dept. Law of Drones memo, spelling out the legal justifications for allowing the administration to target Americans overseas if they are suspected of helping al-Qaeda.  Restraints are minimal & collateral casualties are permissible.  Three criteria are given: (1) the target is part of an "imminent" plot to harm Americans; (2) there is "undue risk" to US personnel if capture is attempted instead; (3) calls are applied within traditional law of war principles--re collateral damage, proportionality, necessity, etc.

Ron Radosh presents an impassioned case against Obama's drone policy.  He makes three arguments which, although well-stated, are all flawed: (1)"imminent" means a specific plot about to be executed; (2) "undue risk" of capture equates to a license to kill at will; (3) collateral damage principles are being violated.  ALL ARE WRONG.  Here's why....

BLOCK OBAMA, NOT HAGEL

The GOP should resist political temptation....

Yes, Hagel is a shockingly unqualified SecDef nominee. Marine vet Jed Babbin eviscerates Hagel, noting that the nominee said this: “There are a lot of things I don’t know about. If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.”  Pundit Stephen Hayes cited low points, and noted that Hagel had said, in an effort to minimize his obvious ignorance: “I won’t be in a policymaking position.”  But his boss is in the top command position....

At WSJ, Bret Stephens summarizes the dismal Obama 2.0 security outlook:

NOMINEE HAGEL IMPLODES

SecDef nominee Chuck Hagel unravels....

Thursday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing was a very bad-hair day for the nominee.

Begin, however, with Hagel's best defense (scroll down to second video clip, 0:58), noting that during his two Senate terms he had cast over 3,000 votes, hundreds of committee votes, given hundreds of speeches, interviews & written a book.  No one quote, Hagel said, defines him.  Fair enough....

Now view this grilling (6:37) from freshman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).  Hagel apparently did not supply the committee with much requested documentation--only 4 of some 100 speeches in the past five years.   Cruz showed video of Hagel accepting that Israel in 2006 was guilty of war crimes in fighting Hezbollah.  Cruz concluded with a clip showing Hagel accepting an al-Jazeera accusation that the US is the world's bully.  Hagel denied the obvious evidence of the videos--which, according to Cruz, were presented with quotes in context.

And there is more....

OBAMA 2.0: FOREIGN POLICY II

Outside the Mideast, also a grim outlook....

KERRY'S WORLD.  But begin first with the views of incoming SecState John Kerry.  Barry Rubin ably dissects Kerry's confirmation testimony:

Unfortunately, Kerry subscribes — as is so fashionable today in the Obama administration and academia — to what I’ll call the “abusive relationship approach” to foreign policy.

If another country supports you and is good for your interests, you take that country’s good will for granted and mistreat it. If another regime — say, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela, Egypt, and, at times in the recent past, Syria and Iran — walks all over you, then you chase after it all the more passionately and shower it with presents.

In the hands of a good realpolitik statesman, this balance would be managed well. For example: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would have kept the Egyptian government off-balance and made it understand that Washington was doing it a favor by providing aid. In other words, leverage would be used.

But in Kerry’s hands, leverage is tossed away. He is so afraid of using power or being tough that he throws away leverage, believing there can be no risk of problems. The recipient must not be intimidated or pressed to change, but instead shown that America is its friend — not the imperialist bully that people like Kerry and President Barack Obama see when they look back at U.S. history.

Kerry, long a proponent of engagement with Syrian thug Bashir Assad, will serve a president stumped as to what to do in Syria....

OBAMA 2.0: FOREIGN POLICY I

What will a retreating America mean for our security?

Several major changes can be expected.  One clue: Obama is pushing CENTCOM's superstar commander, the legendary Marine Gen. James Mattis, into retirement several months before his tenure was to end.  Put simply, Mattis is known to offer honest contrary advice to superiors, without fear or favor.  This is not what this president wants to hear.  This comes from, as the linked article shows, a reportorial source friendly to the president, who sees a White House interested in hearing only from "yes men" (and, presumably, "yes women" as well).

MIDEAST.  Arab Spring reverberations further inflame the entire region, generating & exacerbating myriad major policy challenges.  Barry Rubin notes that "useful idiots" among the Western Left have joined with the Arab Left to back Islamists in the struggles for power.

Iraq.  Start with a riveting video from Iraq (5:28), showing the kind of vital intermediary services the American military provided to stabilize Iraq by reconciling factions.  This mission is effectively ended by President Obama's abrupt troop departure from Iraq.

Iran.  Iran has developed a strong cyberwar capability, in response to the successful Stuxnet cyber-attack that set Iran's nuclear program back an estimated one year.  At Davos, departing Isreali defense minister Ehud Barak said that the US has "sophisticated" plans for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, impliedly obviating the need to early Israeli unilateral action.  Specifically, Barak said that per White House directive, “the Pentagon prepared quite sophisticated, fine, extremely fine, scalpels” for such action.

Also at Davos, Henry Kissinger sees a severe crisis approaching re Iran's nuclear program:

OBAMA 2.0 CHANNELS 1939!

A FATEFUL TURN OF PHRASE....

Fox All-Stars contributor Jonah Goldberg caught something last night that I missed in The One's Second Inaugural: Obama used the infamous 1939 phrase "peace in our time--a phrase associated with a foreign policy stance Obama does not wish to be seen as his....

ISRAEL & HILLARY

More on SecState Hillary's views....

NUCLEAR INSTABILITY RISING

A panel warns us, if nuclear policy fails....

WHITHER AMERICA?: PT. II

What foreign policy challenges await?

IRAN: STAGE SET

As Iran marches towards nuclear status....

EUROPE STABS ISRAEL TOO

How Europe rewarded Islamist terror last week....

KNIFING ISRAEL IN THE BACK

SecState Hillary leads the charge once again....

GAZA: NEXT TIME

Hamas's non-Iranian allies may tilt the result....

GAZA: HALFTIME

 What does the Israel-Hamas War teach?....

O's INTEL LEAKS FOR VOTES

Spec/ops film (22:01), re a big issue Mitt missed.

LIBYA: TWO SMOKING GUNS

Pres. Obama & CBS engaged in a joint coverup....

LIBYA: WHITE HOUSE KNEW

Leaked State Dept. e-mails tell the story....

Mideast October Surprise?

What might happen in the 5 weeks 'til Nov. 6?...

Bibi at the UN

It's Iran, Mr. Obama....

Tying Israel's Hands

Caught between US rock & Iran nuclear hard place....

Embassy Crisis Escalates

Unruly crowds in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia.....

Embassy Attacks: Terrorism

Why terrorism--warfare--may be at work....

Iran's Climate: Mushroom Cloud?

As Iran moves closer, will Israel move faster?

IRAN: US of A Slow-Rolls Israel

Israel even more at odds with US re Iran....

Obama's Latest Mideast Follies

Our president fiddles while Mideast burns....

Appeasing Chinese Nukes

The latest slap at missile defense....

Romney's Trip: Poland

Romney's second successful visit...

Romney's Trip: Israel

Romney scores big....

Olympic Politics of Evil Again

The London Olympics already besmirched....

Obama's Mideast Meltdown

More evidence of our wayward Mideast course....

Obama v. Putin: Checkers v. Chess

Why Obama cannot handle Putin....

Egypt: Democracy Runs Amok

Can the generals save Egypt from Islamism?....

Of Drones and Lawyers

Lawyers try, again, to gum up the works....

Syria: Russia Ups the Ante

Russia sends attack choppers to Assad....

State's New Palestinian Wimpout

Obama Mideast fantasy tour continues....